WITH THEIR EYES ON 2020, DEMOCRATS STRUGGLE TO DEFINE THEIR IDENTITY
Can the Democrats Ever Get Over Their Anti-Israel Bias? Michael Goodwin, New York Post, Feb. 12, 2019 — Whew, that was a close call. But now that Democrats have pulled back from the brink of unchecked antisemitism, they can return to their regularly scheduled programming of routine anti-Israel bias.
Marc Thiessen: Schultz calls Dems Out for How Radical They’ve Become, Marc Thiessen, NWF Daily News, Feb. 3, 2019 — Democrats are furious at former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz for announcing that he may launch an independent campaign for president.
As the Russia Hoax Begins to Unravel, the Gaslighting Begins: Adam Mill, The Federalist, Feb. 17, 2019 — In episode 171 of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza makes up a story about having a house in the Hamptons in order to avoid attending an event with his dead fiancée’s parents, the Rosses.
Why did Republicans Vote Against their Own Bill on Antisemitism?: Ron Kampeas, JTA, Feb. 14, 2019 — Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were in the odd position Wednesday of voting against a bill that included an initiative to combat anti-Semitism, a measure they initially insisted was in the national security interests of the United States.
George Will: Klobuchar could break Minnesota’s presidential losing streak, George Will, Trib Live, Jan. 30, 2019
Green New Deal would destroy American Dream, create American Nightmare, Justin Haskins, Fox News, Feb. 16, 2019
Senate Panel to Investigate Meetings Between Russians and Obama Officials, Andrew Blake, The Washington Times, Feb. 16, 2019
Democrats are tearing themselves apart over Amazon, Marc Theissen, New York Post, Feb. 17, 2019
Can the Democrats Ever Get Over Their Anti-Israel Bias? Michael Goodwin New York Post, Feb. 12, 2019
Whew, that was a close call. But now that Democrats have pulled back from the brink of unchecked antisemitism, they can return to their regularly scheduled programming of routine anti-Israel bias.
The vile tweets of Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar about Jews, money and dual loyalty were forcefully repudiated by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others, though their decision to merely scold her means Omar remains on the Foreign Affairs panel and has a prominent perch from which to peddle her BDS B.S.
Any doubt that Omar will do just that was erased in her defiant “apology,” which included another snide reference to AIPAC where she compared its lobbyists to those of the NRA and oil industry. “It’s gone on too long and we must be willing to address it,” she concluded about all three. She also continues to retweet complaints from others who charge they, too were falsely accused of antisemitism after criticizing AIPAC, a sign she considers herself the victim of what, Jewish power?
The problem going forward for Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has multiple tentacles, and they overlap in Omar. She succeeded Keith Ellison, who freely associated with Louis Farrakhan, as did other Democrats, meaning a significant number of elected officials are comfortable with the most notorious antisemite in America. Recall the long-suppressed photo of a grinning Barack Obama with Farrakhan. Imagine if Donald Trump or any other Republican had . . . you get the point. Another new Dem, Michigan Rep. Rashida Tlaib, once wrote a column for Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam publication. And some supporters with her when she declared her intention to “impeach the motherf–ker,” meaning Trump, believe Israel has no right to exist.
To be clear, not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, and as a nation state, it should generally be held to the same rules and norms we expect from others. While there’s not always a bright line between legitimate criticism and veiled antisemitism, a consistent one is when someone says Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state or demands policies that would lead to the same outcome. As a test, the next time you hear someone make such comments, ask what other countries also have no right to exist. Chances are you won’t get an answer, just an assault on Israel over its treatment of Palestinians or some other supposed injustice against mankind.
And let’s not waste time discussing the United Nations, where the general tone is that the world would be a better place if Jews would disappear. Even the antisemites among Democrats don’t go that far, at least publicly. But much of the party, and many of its young members, are guilty of singling out Israel for condemnation while ignoring the same practices by other nations. Or, conversely, they criticize other nations — say, for harsh treatment of gays or making women second-class citizens — without acknowledging that Israel is an excellent exception in the Mideast.
Most revealing is that many Dems will never make a strong, straightforward case for Israel. Any defense of it is begrudging and often whittled to nothingness with criticisms of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, or of Israeli settlements or the ultra-Orthodox. In their own ways, these Democrats resemble NeverTrump Republicans, who must acknowledge something nice about the president. They’ll do it, but they’d rather bite off their tongues.
This persistent double standard reflects a bias so common, it is no longer noteworthy. Especially on college campuses and other far-left hangouts, Israel is just a colonizing power, a bullying nation of white interlopers oppressing non-whites. The comparisons to South Africa’s apartheid system are routine — and ridiculous.
Ridiculous because they deny history, as if Jews just showed up in Jerusalem after the Holocaust. Those who spew such nonsense are also ignorant of the Bible — or perhaps they see the Bible as an oppressors’ version of history.
They also understand nothing about the dynamic economy Israel has created, a mighty engine that goes beyond the well-documented tech industry. The first time I was there, in 2000, there were concerns about fresh water, especially with Syria trying to divert water on the Golan Heights. Now Israel is a leader in desalination projects. And it has made the desert bloom by treating sewage water and reusing it for irrigation.
With its offers of a two-state solution rejected for nearly two decades by Palestinians, Israel has forged remarkable diplomatic and security alliances with Arab states. And it has developed trading relations with China among others in Asia. Democrats dare not admit or admire any of these accomplishments, nor can they acknowledge the real cause of the Palestinians’ plight: the failure of their leaders to take yes for an answer to Israel’s offer for a separate state.
The rejections and insults of President Mahmoud Abbas toward Trump have added to his people’s misery — yet there is no challenge to his leadership, or even a free vote. So where is the American left’s outrage about the violence and intimidation of ordinary Palestinians? As for Hamas, what advice do college leftists have for how Israel should deal with a terror group whose charter pledges to eliminate the Jewish state? After all, these college snowflakes can’t even bear to hear a thought they don’t agree with, yet they act as if they have the answers to Mideast peace.
That is the Democrats’ ultimate problem. Their party is now largely secular, angry and radical, and moving away from its Judeo-Christian roots. The trends are more pronounced now than they were 10 years ago, and we can only imagine where the party will be 10 years from now.
Against this madness, give Trump his due. He embraces Israel for the miracle and strategic ally it is, and boldly moved our embassy to Jerusalem. And so far, when it comes to standing with Israel, the Dems looking to challenge him in 2020 offer no competition.
Marc Thiessen: Schultz calls Dems Out for How Radical They’ve Become
Marc Thiessen
NWF Daily News, Feb. 3, 2019
Democrats are furious at former Starbucks chief executive Howard Schultz for announcing that he may launch an independent campaign for president. They fear he will split the anti-Trump opposition and help reelect the president. But what angers them even more is that Schultz is calling Democrats out for how radical their party has become.
When Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., recently floated her new wealth tax, Schultz called it “ridiculous.” When Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said we should “eliminate” private health insurance, Schultz said, “That’s not American.” When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., proposed a 70 percent marginal tax rate, Schultz dismissed it, saying “I don’t think we want a 70 percent income tax in America.” Indeed, Schultz has ripped the entire Democratic socialist agenda, declaring “Free Medicare-for-all, government-paid free college for all — first of all, there’s no free. I mean nothing is free.”
No wonder Democrats are fuming. Instead of debating Republicans, they may spend the next two years fighting a liberal independent who is slamming their far-left policies.
Indeed, the neosocialist turn national Democrats have taken is precisely why Schultz decided to run as an independent. He calculated that he could not win the Democratic nomination running as a conventional, centrist Democrat. “I no longer feel affiliated [with the Democrats] because I don’t know their views represent the majority of Americans,” he says.
Schultz is right. In fact, a recent Pew Research poll found that 53 percent of Democrats want the party to move in a more moderate direction, not embrace the radical policies of Ocasio-Cortez. That is precisely what the party needs to do if it wants to beat President Trump. Democrats should be trying to win back the millions of once-reliable Democratic voters who twice cast their ballots for Barack Obama but switched to Trump in 2016.
But instead of tacking to the center to win back voters, Democrats are embracing leftist policies such as government-run health care, government-funded college for all, a government-funded job guarantee and a “Green New Deal.” Together, these programs would cost $42.5 trillion — about twice the national debt. And they are claiming they can pay for it all by taxing the very rich. That’s impossible, and Americans know it. But it is what the most rabid elements of their party are demanding.
This is the problem with our politics today. Both sides have decided that the way to win is no longer to persuade those in the middle, but rather to throw red meat to their hardcore supporters and get them more worked up than those on the other side. Lost in the shuffle are millions of reasonable, persuadable citizens who are left to choose between two unpalatable alternatives.
These are the new “forgotten Americans,” and Schultz is betting they are looking for a leader. He calculates that there is an underserved population of voters who hate today’s radical, polarized politics and want competent centrist leadership.
His candidacy would pose an existential threat to Democrats in 2020, so they will attack him as an out-of-touch billionaire who does not care about working people. It won’t work. As a chief executive, he took ground-breaking steps to make sure his employees shared in Starbucks’s success, giving his baristas stock compensation, offering full tuition at Arizona State University for an online bachelor’s degree and providing even part-time workers with health plans. Schultz is betting this record and a platform of moderately liberal yet fiscally responsible policies can win the presidency.
Is he right? Probably not. There is a reason no independent has ever won the presidency. But Schultz is a visionary entrepreneur who saw a latent demand for a $3 cup of coffee before anyone else. Maybe he is also a visionary political entrepreneur who sees the latent demand for centrist leadership that everyone else is ignoring.
We will soon find out. Until then, he is doing the Democrats a favor by calling them back from the brink of fiscal and political insanity. After Schultz slammed Harris’s call to eliminate private insurance, Harris’s campaign backtracked, saying she has also supported more moderate options. Ocasio-Cortez and the neosocialists are pulling the Democratic Party to the left. Perhaps by threatening their prospects in 2020, Schultz can pull them back in the other direction. For that reason alone, he would do the American people a great service by running.
As the Russia Hoax Begins to Unravel, the Gaslighting Begins Adam Mill
The Federalist, Feb. 17, 2019
In episode 171 of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza makes up a story about having a house in the Hamptons in order to avoid attending an event with his dead fiancée’s parents, the Rosses. He soon learns they know of his deception, but the Rosses nevertheless accept an invitation to the fictitious house. George picks them up and begins driving towards a house that doesn’t exist. Both the Rosses and George maintain the pretense until George drives to the end of island past the last house in the Hamptons. George silently pleads for the Rosses to put an end to the charade. The lie’s momentum took on a life of its own as the players all continued acting their parts long after the truth was known.
The episode comes to mind as the media has started backing away from the Russia collusion hoax. Like Costanza, many of the media perpetrators seem to know a reckoning is coming. Politico warned Trump haters, “Prepare for disappointment.” Other examples of expectation managing can be found, such as here, here, here, and here. Mueller’s long-time top deputy at the FBI recently warned, “A public narrative has built an expectation that the special counsel will explain his conclusions, but I think that expectation may be seriously misplaced.”
Most recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee announced that after almost two years of investigation, it has uncovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. Attorneys assigned to the Mueller team have quietly begun to slip away before the outcome of the investigation is made public (here, here, and here).
This is unsurprising. The Russia hoax is crumbling, and people can’t run away fast enough. We’ve seen signs from the very beginning that many of the people who promoted the Trump-Russia collusion smear have always known it was a hoax. These signs have been in plain sight. Here is an incomplete list.
- Because They Said So
On May 19, 2017, FBI agent Peter Strzok wrote FBI lawyer (and his paramour) Lisa Page his assessment of the Trump-Russia collusion accusations after nearly a year-long investigation: “There’s no big there there.” In June 2017, the following month, CNN’s Van Jones was secretly recorded saying, “The Russia thing is just a big nothingburger. There’s nothing there you can do.” Bob Woodward of Watergate fame has been saying for some time that there’s no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion. Michael Isakoff of Yahoo news, who did some of the early Trump-Russia reporting, has admitted that many of the Trump-Russia claims are “likely false.”
- There’s No Hurry, In Spite of a ‘National Emergency’
According to the conspiracy boosters, the leader of a hostile foreign power is using blackmail (kompromat) to control President Trump (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here). In this last link, the New York Intelligencer asks whether our president would be meeting with his “counterpart or his handler” in a summit between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. If that’s true, then Putin has control of both the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals! Yet the special counsel has allowed President Trump to complete more than half of his first term without filing a report with Congress. The Washington Post opined, “No, the Mueller investigation isn’t taking too long.” The piece compared the length of the Mueller investigation to a selection of prior investigations.
This list included Iran-Contra (six years, eight months); Henry Cisneros’s mistress payments (11 years); and the Clinton Whitewater scandal (also six years, eight months). None of those scandals involved the accusation that a Russian agent occupied the White House. Tellingly, the Post equates the urgency of the Russia collusion investigation to the Iran-Contra affair. Why isn’t the Washington Post demanding that Mueller immediately arm the public with the facts? If they truly believed their own narrative, they’d be thundering that Mueller’s lackadaisical pace leaves the nation in grave jeopardy…. [To read the full article, click the following Link – Ed.]
Why Did Republicans Vote Against Their Own Bill on Antisemitism?
Ron Kampeas
JTA, Feb. 14, 2019
They voted for it before they voted against it. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives were in the odd position Wednesday of voting against a bill that included an initiative to combat anti-Semitism, a measure they initially insisted was in the national security interests of the United States.
The bill itself would end U.S. assistance for Saudi Arabia in the war it is pursuing in Yemen. But the measure also included a motion, pushed by Republicans, saying it was in the national security interest to oppose boycotts of “countries friendly to the United States” — i.e., Israel. The motion, put forth by Rep. David Kustoff, R-Tenn., was seen by many as a pill that would be especially hard for Democrats to swallow. Senate Democrats had just taken heat, after all, when many in the party voted against an Israel assistance bill because it included anti-boycott legislation that would penalize entities that call for a boycott of Israel. Dissenting Democrats said that such laws impinge on free speech; Republicans said the Democratic opponents were appeasing the anti-Israel crowd.
And motions like these, known as a “motion to recommit,” are usually the minority’s last-bid attempt to embarrass the majority by forcing it to oppose mom-and-apple-pie sentiments. “It is in the national security interest of the United States to combat antisemitism around the world,” Kustoff, a former prosecutor thundered, quoting the motion. His GOP colleagues applauded and cheered. “I ask all members to stand in solidarity with Jews around the world and support the motion to recommit.”
If Kustoff had intended to bait the Democrats into opposing the anti-boycott motion, it didn’t work. After he resumed his seat, the acting speaker, Rep. G. K. Butterfield, D-N.C., asked for speakers in opposition. Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., rose and said, “I do not oppose.” There were surprised murmurs. “I accept this resolution and I agree with everything Mr. Kustoff just said,” Engel said. Rep. Eliot Engel didn’t take Kustoff’s bait Wednesday. (Screenshot from C-Span) Engel, the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, had just given the green light to his Democratic colleagues to vote for what the caucus might under different circumstances have believed was a poison pill…. [To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link —Ed.]
On Topic Links
George Will: Klobuchar could break Minnesota’s presidential losing streak: George Will, Trib Live: Jan. 30, 2019 — Surely the silliest aspirant for the Democrats’ 2020 presidential nomination is already known: “Beto,” aka Robert Francis, O’Rourke is a skateboarding man-child whose fascination with himself caused him to live-stream a recent dental appointment for — open-wide, please — teeth cleaning.
Green New Deal would destroy American Dream, create American Nightmare: Justin Haskins, Fox News, Feb. 16, 2019 — The nonbinding Green New Deal resolution supported by socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of New York and many fellow Democrats in Congress – including some running for president – makes absolutely no sense. It is a fantasy based on hopes and dreams with no basis in reality.
Senate Panel to Investigate Meetings Between Russians and Obama Officials: Andrew Blake, The Washington Times, Feb. 16, 2019 — The Senate Finance Committee is probing meetings reportedly held in 2015 between two of former President Barack Obama’s top economic officials and Maria Butina, a Russian national who later pleaded guilty to conspiring to covertly influence U.S. foreign policy, the panel said Friday.
Democrats are tearing themselves apart over Amazon: Marc Theissen, New York Post, Feb. 17, 2019 — Democrats are fighting mad — at each other. For once, President Trump is not the prime target of their rage.
